User talk:Defiant
Archive Start a new discussion "Melora" comments Just wanted to say thanks for the comments you made in the "Melora" nomination. Much appreciated. --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:52, April 15, 2011 (UTC) :No problem; I had a good time reading the article! :) --Defiant 12:02, April 15, 2011 (UTC) StarTrek.com links When putting reference links to the site in articles, can you please use the template? It allows us to find links there more easily and readily, especially when they decide to do their bi-annual reorganization. Thanks. -- sulfur 12:06, May 17, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah. Not a problem. Thanks for letting me know what it's called; my previous lack of that knowledge was the only reason I didn't add the template! --Defiant 13:34, May 17, 2011 (UTC) No worries. When I created it, I didn't really make a big deal of it, as it took 2-3 iterations to get it right and doing what it can do now. To be honest, its existence came completely out of their latest re-org, and the need to go through all of our ST.com links and either fix them or convert them to use the template. And let me tell you, that was a right pain! :) -- sulfur 13:46, May 17, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, I can imagine it would be! The ST.com template makes sense to me, sulfur; it's a good one, IMO. :) --Defiant 13:54, May 17, 2011 (UTC) Starlog #213 This January you added two citations (first, second) from Starlog magazine issue #213 to the article Tuvix (episode). However, Starlog issue #213 was published April 1995, 13 months before "Tuvix" aired, and pages 50–51 which you cited have two two-page spreads on Earth 2 and Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future. Could you double-check those citations? — THOR ''=/\='' 03:55, May 25, 2011 (UTC) :Good catch; my bad. It should actually be #231. --Defiant 15:31, May 25, 2011 (UTC) Deleted scenes and "would" Hi there Defiant. Just a reminder that you should cite your sources when adding entries to the deleted scene page. That page is no different from any other. :-) Thanks.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 11:11, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :Regardless of whether it is any different from any other, I think it should be, Cleanse. My opinion counts for something too, you know?! In this case, I'll assume that the matter has already been settled by community consensus, but I thought your tone could have been a little more accommodating! --Defiant 13:32, July 5, 2011 (UTC) ::Defiant, I'm not sure what kind of issues you appear to be having with Cleanse here, but he was simply noting that your recent additions to the deleted scenes page in the Voyager section did not have citations listed. There is no need to take offense at what was a calm comment and reminder that you forgot to add citations. It happens to us all, and you do not need to be defensive about the situation. -- sulfur 13:44, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :I agree; I've no need to take offense or be defensive about Cleanse's post, which is why I'm doing neither. --Defiant 13:59, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :In response to both Cleanse and sulfur, the post that started this thread was not a "reminder" (though clearly meant in that way), as I didn't forget – not including citations with my additions to the deleted scenes page was a conscious decision, on my part, made in accordance with the guideline to make "bold" edits. As I said, I think that particular page should be treated differently from other articles. --Defiant 14:11, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :Furthermore, any sort of citation for the scene that was removed from and added to (which the latest of those additions by myself pertains to) would automatically have to include "original research," which I was under the impression we're trying to avoid. The book A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager consistently talks about the scene as a part of "Eye of the Needle", and I've been unable to find any sources that specifically make the connection, saying outrightly that it was incorporated into "Cathexis". So, what are we to do, in that case?! I am (and have been) perplexed! --Defiant 14:24, July 5, 2011 (UTC) ::So, the scene (according to the book) was part of "Eye of the Needle"? And then showed up in "Cathexis"? In that case, cite the book, as it notes that it was part of "Needle", and perhaps rework the sentence slightly to put the citation at the relevant point, as the citation that it is in the teaser is... er... the episode itself. -- sulfur 14:55, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :Okay, thanks for that, sulfur. Just to clarify, the book does discuss the scene's deletion from "Eye of the Needle", just not any info about its obvious presence in "Cathexis". I'll assume from your last post that we're not as dead-set against original research as I originally thought we were (maybe I've been thinking of wikipedia!) I've now added a citation to the bit about this scene. I'll look for citable page number(s) soon, but I'm currently busy trying to search for page numbers for the article. Once I've done that, I'll concentrate on the deleted scenes section about VOY. --Defiant 15:14, July 5, 2011 (UTC) ::I wouldn't consider that specific example original research myself. Original research is when you go through 30 episodes showing that Sisko is a anarchist (for example) based on his behaviour. It isn't pointing out the obvious (such as "scene X was deleted from episode Y, but used in episode Z"). Anything that can be readily verified by visiting a source (whether reference book, interview, or the episode itself) is not original research. -- sulfur 15:21, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :Okay, got it. I'll try to remember that, now. I always thought it meant own/personal research, therefore drawing a conclusion where something is not outrightly stated but implied would be included (e.g. the presence of the deleted scene in "Cathexis"). Something else that I don't understand but pertains to this site (there's quite a few such things!) is the quibble that some people have over the word "would," saying it's grammatically incorrect. I've always thought, "Surely context plays a part in that issue, too!" Do you know what I mean? --Defiant 15:37, July 5, 2011 (UTC) ::The issue with the word "would" is all about context. It's not grammatically incorrect, but it can be grammatically awkward. Used such as "X would be used in Y" is awkward language and better phrased as "X was used in Y". Any time the "past imperfect" is used, it is (by necessity) rather awkward. As we strive to be an encyclopedia, we try to avoid the use of imperfect tenses wherever possible. State simple facts "X was used" not "X would be used." The biggest issue is when a sentence is written in one tense, then changes to another when the "would" is introduced. That's what we're trying to avoid. -- sulfur 15:52, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :Well, yeah; that's the example of context I was considering bringing up, as it does seem grammatically awkward. But the word "would" is used on other occasions, too (such as quotes, etc). Are we saying that those sort of cases are acceptable? --Defiant 15:59, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :A related issue is whether we employ our other decisions, re: words, in quotes, such as "Human" and "The Doctor" having caps. --Defiant 16:12, July 5, 2011 (UTC) ::If the quote is from a book, written interview, etc, then the quote should be verbatim. If from an episode, video or audio interview, etc, then our styling. -- sulfur 17:39, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :Cool – that is how I've been doing them (for the most part, anyways). Thanks for all your advice, sulfur. :) --Defiant 17:51, July 5, 2011 (UTC) In response to the claims advanced somewhat further above, you'll note that MA:CYS is a policy that applies to all pages. That policy has community consensus, and it is unnecessary to rediscuss on each page. MA:BOLD does not mean redefine policies on each page. I'm still not entirely sure why you thought that one individual page shouldn't have citations, but if it's because of your issue regarding one episode's citation, your concerns could have been brought up on Talk: Deleted scene. The logic to not cite anything because of problems with one citation escapes me. I also called it a reminder because as an administrator, I was assuming that you had a general understanding of policies and had just forgotten to cite a couple of edits. This seemed more likely than you deliberately deciding policies didn't apply to single pages. Obviously I was mistaken. You can hopefully tell that I am not happy. I left one friendly reminder to help out, with a smiley indicating good faith. Without any further comments from my part this led to accusations of having an unaccomodating tone and attempting to stifle opinions. This is very trying.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 22:06, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not sure what you mean by "stifling opinions" but I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of having an unaccommodating tone and, IMHO, that's something quite different from suggesting that you could have a more accommodating one. Just as I took no offense to you, I didn't mean to cause you any offense, either; I'm sorry if I have. I'm not quite sure what your problem is, though. --Defiant 23:03, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :After some further reading, I've realized that you've kinda been out of line with MA guidelines, Cleanse. MA:BOLD states, "It's always better to have some content (as long as it's on-topic and not patent nonsense) rather than no content at all .... It's perfectly all right to dive right in and add your own ideas to make the article better." Therefore, not only should you just have been happy that I added info about the deleted scenes (rather than me continuing to let there be no info about those scenes, on the deleted scenes page) but, as far as I can see, there was nothing stopping you from adding however many citations you felt appropriate, yourself! I appreciate that you did this for the one about , but I think you'll just have to come to terms with the fact that not everyone shares your opinions; I'm sorry you have a problem with it, but that's just how the world works. --Defiant 23:25, July 5, 2011 (UTC) ::With your last comment on the MA:BOLD bit, that suggests that our text on that policy is out of date. It should note that citations are required. I'll try to remember to update that tomorrow. Citations are important, information with no basis makes us no better than IMDb. -- sulfur 02:20, July 6, 2011 (UTC) # In the future, if you don't want to accuse me of things, then don't make it sound like it. I wrote my initial comment in a polite manner. I would suggest that if you don't want people to think you are accusing them, then don't dash off replies with exclamation marks and personal complaints. Okay? :-) # I welcome Sulfur's idea to update MA:BOLD. However, it should be obvious already that it does not permit experienced users to violate policies and then expect others to clean it up for them. As an administrator, you are meant to uphold the policies and the general practices of the wiki. Other administrators leaving a reminder/heads up is not intended as an attack, but just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. # It's not my "opinion" that pages should have citations, it's the policy created by consensus. You are not above policies. In fact, I am confused by your sudden resistance because you have participated in discussions about the format of citations (so have contributed to making the policy), have added citations and "citation needed" tags to existing information etc. Clearly you know the policy on citations and why this is important in an encyclopedia. As I said above, if you are concerned with how to cite something, or that it may be original research, just bring it up on the talk page. –Cleanse ( talk | ) 05:13, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :1. It's a text-only website, so it's impossible to make any posts "sound like" anything; I'm not entirely responsible for the way you read (as in "red") my post and it seems a bit laughable that you'd find an exclamation mark offensive (or any other type of frequently-used punctuation, for that matter). I made no "personal complaints" – it was a suggestion, just like you wrote "I would suggest...." :2. Okay, for the most part... though I didn't interpret your "heads up" as "an attack" – as I've stated multiple times now, it did not offend me. I also believe that the purpose was not to be offensive. :3. It's clearly both your opinion and general consensus that all pages should have citations; otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing for it so strongly. The need for citations is not, actually, in dispute. It's clearly just been assumed that that is what I do have a problem with, as at no point have I been asked why I think the deleted scenes page should be an exception, which smacks of arrogant presumption on your part; you're evidently not interested in what I have to say, so why ask? Your conclusion, this time, was far better; thank you! :) I agree that I am not "above policies," but as both a member of the community and an admin, my voice/opinion is just important as yours. That's the way it should be, anyway. --Defiant 09:07, July 6, 2011 (UTC) So...you were suggesting that my tone should be more accommodating, but posts don't actually "sound like" anything? Huh? %-) Anyway, I am glad you have decided to follow policies again. Cite your sources OR make your case to not do so on the talk page first, and the wiki will run smoothly.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 09:08, July 7, 2011 (UTC) :If you don't be a nitpicker, the site will run smoothly, too! --Defiant 09:47, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Talk:Gang As much as I am appreciative of an apology, I don't think I particularly took your initial response any other way then I could have taken it. You didn't feel the need to respond on content nor did you just let my response be. You started by pointing out why my opinion was of lesser value. And then by going on to do it off as "what the people in general feel". Unless its the MA policy to deter people from joining, I would very much appreciate being treated with slightly more respect without below the belt comments, unless you believe I did something to not earn that respect. -- OvBacon(Talk) 14:26, July 14, 2011 (UTC) :I'm sorry you didn't take my initial comment to you in the way it was meant and I would have said something along the same lines to anyone else with as few edits or evidence of uncertainty regarding the English language. But I certainly didn't mean it as a personal attack. As far as I can see, you're doing very well with editing so often and I believe that, if you keep it up, you have the potential to become an admin. I simply recommend that you might want to wait til then to add your insights to discussions about admin-related issues, such as merges. --Defiant 17:44, July 14, 2011 (UTC) ::A merge is not an admin-related issue. Anyone can speak to merges (and pretty much anything else) here on MA. -- sulfur 17:52, July 14, 2011 (UTC) :::The actual merge should be done by an admin, because of the deletion required to merge the page histories, but merge discussions are open to whoever wants to post. - 18:31, July 14, 2011 (UTC) :Okay. That's definitely news to me, but alright. Sorry, OvBacon; my error! :( --Defiant 18:59, July 14, 2011 (UTC) :Could someone please remove my admin status, then? In light of this misunderstanding, I clearly don't even have as much knowledge about what constitutes admin-related issues as I thought I did! --Defiant 19:13, July 14, 2011 (UTC) Accepted of course. I would also like to make clear that I have no problem with it if the opinion of an admin has more weight than my own, I just want my opinion to be heard and through participation in discussions to learn the ways of MA. -- OvBacon(Talk) 19:19, July 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::If you want to surrender your admin powers, Cid or Sulfur can do it.--31dot 20:58, July 14, 2011 (UTC) :::::Done. -- Cid Highwind 21:18, July 14, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks, Cid. :) --Defiant 22:49, July 14, 2011 (UTC) Compendium The Star Trek Compendium has multiple editions, so the edition number should be mentioned in the citation. Thanks.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 09:02, July 28, 2011 (UTC) :Alright. I was unaware of that. Guess I should have looked it up; sorry. --Defiant 10:30, July 28, 2011 (UTC) Input requested Can you take a look at Memory Alpha:Images for deletion and weigh in. Further input is need to break the tie. Thanks. - 07:54, August 28, 2011 (UTC) :Done, giving my honest opinion. Glad I could be of assistance. --Defiant 08:42, August 28, 2011 (UTC) That's all I ask, and I tend to agree, that images should be used on Wikipedia somewhere. - 08:48, August 28, 2011 (UTC) Rura Penthe aliens Hi there! I noticed the note you've recently added to Rura Penthe inhabitants, and it's probably a long shot, but I wonder if your source has anything at all to say regarding this unresolved discussion? If it's the same alien, it would be exactly what you were talking about in the note. -- Capricorn 14:40, September 1, 2011 (UTC) :I don't remember finding any particular info like that. I probably would have noted it if there was. --Defiant 17:52, September 1, 2011 (UTC) Gav In adding some background notes, apocrypha and external links to Gav, I also had to add an to the note you just added about the episode's script. If you could, would you mind putting the citation in? --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:31, September 1, 2011 (UTC) :Well, it's from the actual script that I got off ebay. --Defiant 20:10, September 1, 2011 (UTC) :So, I've removed the citation request, since the note already says that the info is from the script. If you can think of a better way to cite script info, you're welcome to either add it or talk to me about it first. --Defiant 22:00, September 1, 2011 (UTC) ::Defiant is correct – stating that the information comes from the script is a sufficient citation. It is good practice, however, to link to scripts where possible, which is mainly the case for TNG, DS9 and the films.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:42, September 1, 2011 (UTC) :Which I have been trying to do, and will continue to do. --Defiant 05:51, September 2, 2011 (UTC) ::I know. Just clarifying the situation for TrekFan. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 05:56, September 2, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, I reckoned as much. It's good advice if you're adding script info yourself, TrekFan. :) --Defiant 06:00, September 2, 2011 (UTC) I always do add citations. I figured you had got it from a reference book that contained the script from the episode (like The Q Chronicles), in which case you could have cited it with that and the page number just to give it a source, but never mind. --| TrekFan Open a channel 08:04, September 2, 2011 (UTC) Input If you don't mind could you sound off on this discussion? Thanks. - 17:31, September 10, 2011 (UTC) ''Cinefantastique'' information I'd just like to thank you for the information from Cinefantastique you have added to several pages, most notably on Voyager episode pages. I read on your user page that you don't like DS9 (which I think is crazy, but each to his own) and was wondering if this was why there was little information from Cinefantastique on Deep Space Nine on Memory Alpha, or if the magazine just didn't focus on Deep Space Nine that much. -- DS9 Forever 13:12, September 17, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not quite sure, other than to say that Cinefantastique appears to concentrate just as much on DS9 as Voyager and TNG, and that some of the folks who have an interest in that series don't seem to have access to the magazine. Ever since starting my concentrated effort to upgrade the Voyager episode articles (and even years before that), I've secretly been planning to do the same for all the spin-off series, which would ultimately include DS9. Voyager seemed like a good one to start off with as, unlike such series as TNG or DS9 (which both have their respective Companion books), Voyager s bg info seems rarer and/or more evenly spread over a number of sources (there therefore seemed less of a chance of risking copyright infringement by endeavoring to be definitive). I always try to keep my edits here relatively disassociated from personal feelings, however, so I have no qualms about concentrating on DS9 info eventually. --Defiant 13:37, September 17, 2011 (UTC) Recent talk page comments I've seen many talk page comments similar to those on Talk:Armus from you in the recent past. Typically, you start side-tracking a till-then civil and on-topic discussion by claiming that you have been treated unfairly, and how this wiki is about to collapse because all admins are evil. Please stop doing that, it's becoming terribly annoying. I am not out to get you, and if you read "attitudes" into innocent discussion comments, it perhaps says more about your mindset than about that of the guy you're talking to. -- Cid Highwind 17:19, September 25, 2011 (UTC) :I'm baffled by what you mean about "claiming I have been treated unfairly, and how this wiki is about to collapse because all admins are evil." If you read my user page, it actually talks about "the wonderful, ongoing efforts of the admins and fellow contributors," so I think you might just be misreading some stuff or something like that. --Defiant 17:32, September 25, 2011 (UTC) :I'm 110% sure that I haven't once said you're "out to get me" (as I actually think quite the opposite since, as far as I can see, you keep your posts very on-topic, etc., for which you should be commended). I don't have any sort of ongoing problem with you, so if anyone here is reading "attitudes" into innocent discussion comments... it's not me. By the way, I also don't think this wiki is about to "collapse," since I know wikia's method: once at wikia, always at wikia (even if mirrors are created)! --Defiant 17:43, September 25, 2011 (UTC) ::(Posting here to avoid being off-topic on the other page) I did not say you were acting in bad faith, or anything other than good faith; I was simply pointing out that I didn't agree with your comment.--31dot 18:09, September 25, 2011 (UTC) :Sorry, 31dot. I didn't mean you; I was referring to Cid's comment above; I apparently think admins are "evil," etc. --Defiant 18:20, September 25, 2011 (UTC) :::Let's break down what you said there Defiant: :::"Well, just forget my suggestion, then, as you seem dead-set against giving it any sort of approval. Even if you don't approve of the idea, you could still have acknowledged/welcomed the fact that I contributed by making a suggestion." :::This is uncalled for and a complete over reaction. No one has even suggested that they were "dead-set" against your idea, and if "welcoming" and "acknowledging" an idea requires discussing it in detail even if that's not what the person was talking about, then I ask why anyone should pander to what you think? Cid acknowledged your idea by saying it wasn't what he had in mind. That doesn't mean it was a flat out dismissal, just that it's not what he was talking about. The idea is still there and can still be discussed, though I'm not sure why anyone should now that you've flown off the handle about it. :::"The fact that you didn't is typical of the attitude adopted by MA's admins nowadays, if you ask me!" :::This right here is the off topic "admins are evil" crap you like to spread around, and no one asked you. There is no way to read this as constructive at all, it's just you complaining for no reason and pushing a point that has long since been rejected by the community. You call this an "innocent discussion comment", but it's more of you raging and trolling because someone appeared to disagree with you, and that has to stop. - 18:46, September 25, 2011 (UTC) :Regarding the insult "crap", I don't believe there's any need to get so personal and insulting. I request mediation from an admin uninvolved in this. --Defiant 23:57, September 25, 2011 (UTC) :I feel really abused by the accusation of "trolling," especially since I've been a user here since 2004! I wasn't even taking this personally, not by one iota, but actually arguing for the rights of newbies who may also encounter the same sort of dismissive attitude. It seems very, very clear to me that there's little I can say or do that will make the truth be known, though – that every and any point I make is for a precise reason, entirely unrelated to "trolling." I'm still requesting admin mediation, as there's apparently so little I can do without the accusations starting! Evidently, the "assume good faith" guideline is repeatedly being breached. With these accusations of "trolling" and such, I'm feeling very threatened, and this is even after a few hours of me following the "taking some time out" guideline. --Defiant 00:29, September 26, 2011 (UTC) :Clearly, my motives are being misunderstood time and time again, and in lieu of an explanation (rather than just inquire as to one), some users seem intent on just assuming an awful lot (the main faux pas being that, since no reasoning has been outlined to you, there mustn't be one, other than the nonsense of "trolling"). If you misunderstand my motives, I'd request that you please ask me what they are (just as people frequently do in reality). I certainly don't appreciate being personally attacked, as in Archduk's post. What I myself can't understand is why, even though I admitted (early in this discussion) that this was just a small nitpick (and there's only a single, short, non-personally-offensive post that seems at question), others have felt it warrants a force of three admins to respond! Doesn't that seem a little bit heavy-handed, especially since Archduk has breached the policies and guidelines multiple times without any comeback from any other admin (at least, as far as I can see)? --Defiant 08:56, September 26, 2011 (UTC) It's funny to see you complaining about others assuming "an awful lot" about you, given the fact that this thread was started to ask you to stop assuming too much about others. As long as you won't even admit that this is the case (that you did read things into other peoples comments), I see no further sense in continuing this discussion - or acknowledging any future complaints from you, for that matter - because we'd just be running in the same circles over and over again. -- Cid Highwind 10:03, September 26, 2011 (UTC) :Regarding "it's funny," I'm glad I could amuse you, Cid. :) I'm not sure what you mean about "stop assuming too much about others," as I have stated that I assumed your original post was "well-meant." Was that too much to assume? --Defiant 10:20, September 26, 2011 (UTC) :I'd also ask how you supposedly "know" I "read things into other people's comments" without any proof of that, and evidence (in fact) to the contrary! Don't you think I'd know what I've been assuming more so than someone else half the planet away?! I'll swear on everything sacred to me, including my own mother's life, that I didn't presume anything from your post other than it was well-intentioned. I'm really getting tired of all these accusations, though, so it may indeed be for the best if we try to cut down on contact with one another. But by that, please don't assume that I mean anything negative towards you (as is your habit). --Defiant 10:59, September 26, 2011 (UTC)